The weeks after the assignment ended decided everything
A casual worker who believed his employment ended when his assignment ended has failed to convince the Fair Work Commission he was ever dismissed.
In a decision handed down on 20 April 2026, Deputy President Dean of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application of Ms Jamie O'Neill-Hutchin against Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Limited, finding no dismissal had occurred under the Fair Work Act 2009.
The case posed a question familiar to anyone managing a contingent workforce: when a casual assignment ends, does that automatically mean the worker has been dismissed?
Ms O'Neill-Hutchin had been engaged as a casual Parking Officer at a local Council through Hays, commencing mid-December 2025. On 7 January 2026, the Council told Hays it wished to end the assignment. Ms McGovern, Hays' Section Manager and O'Neill-Hutchin's main point of contact, called him that same day to advise him.
O'Neill-Hutchin interpreted the call as a termination of his employment. He told the Commission he did not receive ongoing shifts or income after that point, though he acknowledged he had in fact accepted further work. He lodged a general protections application under the Fair Work Act, claiming he had been dismissed.
Hays disputed this, raising a jurisdictional objection on the ground that O'Neill-Hutchin had not been dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the Act. This was the sole threshold question before the Commission — it did not proceed to consider the merits of any alleged general protections contravention.
What happened in the weeks that followed became central to the Commission's finding. On 9 February 2026, Ms McGovern contacted O'Neill-Hutchin to request an updated resume so she could source new opportunities. He declined to provide one but said he wanted to continue seeking work through Hays. Later that month, she circulated his resume to several Councils and referred him to a colleague at the Newcastle office for non-Council roles.
On 26 February 2026, she reached out about a hospitality position. He showed initial interest but later said it was not for him. In early March 2026, a short-term Events Labourer role in Gosford came up. O'Neill-Hutchin agreed to be considered, commenced the role, but left shortly after arriving on site, telling Ms McGovern he had not been prepared for the manual nature of the work. On 11 March 2026, she spoke with him again, and he told her he was looking for government or Council roles.
Ms McGovern gave evidence that O'Neill-Hutchin remained on Hays' casual candidate database and she was ready to keep sourcing suitable opportunities for him.
Deputy President Dean accepted that evidence. "I am satisfied that the employment relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent did not cease when the assignment ended given these ongoing efforts by Ms McGovern and because the Applicant did in fact accept another role. As a result, I am not satisfied that the employment ended at the initiative of the employer."
Also relevant were the Terms of Engagement O'Neill-Hutchin had signed with Hays in November 2025. The contract stated that "each Assignment constitutes a separate and distinct engagement with Hays" and that Hays was under no obligation to offer assignments. The Commission found the contract was casual in nature and did not guarantee that work would be provided.
The application was ultimately dismissed. The Commission found O'Neill-Hutchin had not discharged his onus to demonstrate he was dismissed within the meaning of the Act.
For HR leaders overseeing casual and labour hire arrangements, the case is a practical reminder that conduct after an assignment ends can be just as significant as what the contract says. Staying in contact, actively sourcing alternative roles, and keeping a worker on the candidate database all played a decisive role in the outcome here.
